“President Obama is against repealing the health law’s long-term care CLASS Act and might veto Republican efforts to do so, an administration official tells The Hill, despite the government’s announcement Friday that the program was dead in the water. [snip]

Over the weekend, The Hill has learned, an administration official called CLASS Act advocates to reassure them that Obama is still committed to making the program work. That official also told advocates that widespread media reports on the program’s demise were wrong, leaving advocates scratching their heads.

Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius announced Friday in a blog post on the liberal Huffington Post web site that the administration did not see a way to make the program sustainable. Sebelius indicated her agency hadn’t been able to figure out a way to ensure the program providing long-term care paid for itself as required by law.

Later in a call with reporters on Friday, an HHS official said work on the program was being suspended.

“We won’t be working further to implement the CLASS Act … We don’t see a path forward to be able to do that,” Assistant Secretary for Aging Kathy Greenlee told reporters on Friday.”

Try and wrap your minds around this boobery: Kathleen Sebelius was tasked by the ObamaCare health scam law to implement the CLASS act. But this past Friday Sebelius threw in the sponge as HHS abandoned the crucial part of ObamaCare as fiscally unworkable.But today Obama is repudiating his own Health and Human Services Secretary and saying he will try to get some CLASS. Who’s on first, who’s in charge?

“In other words, it’s mathematically impossible to make the CLASS Act work, yet somehow The One’s going to make it work anyway. You’ll never find a sharper illustration of his basic approach to fiscal reality than you’re seeing right here.

In fairness, he probably does understand that the program’s well and truly dead, but so terrible would it look for him to sign legislation repealing any part of ObamaCare that he prefers the idiocy of vetoing a bill that’s aimed at undoing a program already undone by his own staff. There’s wonderful symbolism in that: Agenda and “messaging” trumps all, even if it means keeping a policy in place that’s now acknowledged as destructive by both parties. So much for the guy who was going to end “business as usual” in D.C. Guy Benson’s right too that O likely wants to keep stringing along the CLASS Act true believers for as long as he can, partly to soak them for donations before election day and partly to deflect tough questions they might ask about which other unworkable parts of ObamaCare the administration might be prepared to discard.”

It’s Boobery, Corruption and Treachery all in one on day one thousand from “the One”.

“President Obama will kick off a three-day bus trip through small towns in politically competitive North Carolina and Virginia Monday, but White House officials insist the trip is about jobs, not votes.

So much so, in fact, that they convened a conference call Sunday to reiterate that point several times, pointing out that the trip is fully on the taxpayers’ dime, not the president’s re-election campaign’s.

Well no one is that stupid right? No way that Obama can dupe the dupes and seduce those willing to be duped even when all the evidence is there that they are dupes, right? No one is that stupid or that desperate to be duped and duped again, right? Right?:

“The Occupy Wall Street protests have energized liberals in Congress and all but silenced the left’s criticism of President Obama.

Liberals who have felt scorned and overlooked by the White House say they are rejuvenated by the protests launched from Zuccotti Park in Lower Manhattan, and hope that they provide Obama and liberal causes with new impetus and vigor.“

Mission accomplished Occupy Wall Street. Silence is golden. Congratulations for fleecing the flock, duping the gullible and those desperate to rejoin the Obama Dimocratic Party. It’s sooo lonely being without a party and it’s fun to be back.

It takes a village of idiots to fill the seats at the Boobamafest, have no fear…even if the ill informed don’t show up because they are more interested in testing out their 99% chances with the WSP condoms…their friend Jon Favreau can whip up some life sized posters to stand in as a photo opt for their corroded calf.

Interesting. Every time you read “White House Liason” in the news, realize that they are talking about Valerie Jarrett’s personal creative class Obot army. And it looks like Issa is gunning for Jarrett.

In April of 2009, President Obama made a key decision to dramatically expand and extend the role of White House Staffers, giving them the power and responsibility to intervene in just about every decision throughout the federal government. Though hardly noticed at the time, Obama directed that Office of the White House Public Liaison be renamed as the Office of Public Engagement and Intergovernmental Affairs, headed by his friend and political confidant, Valerie Jarrett. The many new Liaisons were recruited from the most fervent young campaign workers, all of whom were fervent Obama supporters, but who had limited experience in government or in the work of the many agencies in which they would be imbedded.

Inevitably, these new, young and inexperienced White House Liaison officers too often redirected the work of career government servants to meet more expedient political needs of the Obama Administration. The result has been a disaster.

Greg Nelson, White House Liaison, has his fingerprints all over the Solyndra deal, including emails between him and Solyndra executives regarding President Obama’s trips, the half a billion dollar federal loan and meeting with Carol Browner the Energy Czar. Denise Gitsham, former White House liaison at DOJ, now a lobbyist and D.C.based executive at Sapphire Energy which received over $100 million in federal government loans and announced by President Obama and DOE Secretary, Steven Chu. You can also bank on the fact that as the investigations move forward, further examination of email correspondence would likely show a more detailed connection and knowledge of activities of the DoE White House Liaison in bypassing normal the normal review process under the control of career government servants, in a forlorn attempt to gain some political benefit by rewarding Obama supporters and helping friends.

Clearly, Obama’s new young White House Liaison Officers seem to be the critical players in so many of the scandals now erupting. Obama’s White House Liaison officers, working under the direct control of Valerie Jarrett and embedded into every single federal agency are, for the most part, unqualified and inexperienced. Worse yet, unless the decision to empower these young White House Liaison Officers with the ability to disrupt and intervene in agency decisions is revoked, more scandals seem inevitable.

Read the whole thing. It’s good. It’s like the whole administration is Obot fratboys gone wild, all under Jarrett’s tutelage.

The three-day bus tour, with stops in rural towns, suburbs and several cities, literally traces an escape route for Obama’s reelection campaign through two states he carried in 2008 that are must-wins next year even if Obama succeeds in recapturing lost ground in more traditional battlegrounds like Ohio and Florida. [snip]

Yet the trip’s itinerary suggests nothing so much as his 2012 game plan plotted onto a map of the Upper South and with the American Jobs Act, which polls well among all but the most conservative voters, as a selling point.

“The main goals for Obama in North Carolina really hold true for Virginina, too,” says Mileah Kromer, assistant director of the Elon University Poll, whose September poll found the president with a 42/51 percent approval/disapproval split in the Tar Heel State.

“First, he needs to make sure black voters, who are the core here, are as motivated as they were last time,” says Kromer. “Second, he needs to reach out to working-class whites, who he’s totally lost. Third, he’s got to generate some kind of enthusiasm among liberals …who are his volunteer and donor base.”

Inevitably, these new, young and inexperienced White House Liaison officers too often redirected the work of career government servants to meet more expedient political needs of the Obama Administration.

This reminds me of the zampolit in the old USSR – political officers in military units who were there to make sure the military command toed the party line.

Obama gets worst coverage, Perry gets best, according to Pew survey
By Rachel Weiner, Monday, October 17, 9:40 AM
It’s an article of faith for many conservatives that the media is in Obama’s corner. But according to a new Pew Research Center survey of media over the past five months, the president gets far worse coverage than any of his 2012 Republican would-be rivals. Jeff Kowalsky BLOOMBERG Coverage of President Obama has been overwhelmingly negative.

The center surveyed stories in 1,500 news outlets and found that stories in them about President Obama were consistently negative, by a four-to-one margin. Only nine percent of the news coverage in those outlets over the last five months was positive; 34 percent was negative.

The tone of Obama’s coverage on blogs, while still overwhelmingly negative, was slightly better for the president, with 14 percent rated as positive and 36 percent rated negative.

That’s not to say that there was never evidence of a pro-Obama bias in the press.

In October of 2007, then-Sen. Barack Obama got the most positive treatment in the news outlets surveyed, while coverage of then-Sen. Hillary Clinton, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani (R) was more negative than positive. By May of 2008, coverage of Clinton and Obama had evened out, while coverage of McCain remained more unfavorable than favorable.

However, since shortly after President Obama took office, coverage of the president has largely focused on the economic crisis. While the president has been able to affect the amount of coverage he gets by scheduling speeches and events, the survey revealed that he has not been able to shift the tone of that coverage.

According to the survey, Republican presidential contenders have found a more mixed media reception.

Texas Gov. Rick Perry takes the prize for most positive coverage (although he has been in the race for the shortest period of time), with good reports outweighing negative ones 32 to 20 percent. However, in recent months, coverage has focused on Perry’s stumbles and he has been eclipsed in positive coverage (and polls) by former Godfather’s Pizza CEO Herman Cain.

Coverage of former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney has been evenly divided with 26 percent of it positive and 27 percent of it negative.

The 2012 Republican candidate with the most negative coverage was former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, whose coverage was 35 percent negative and 15 percent positive.

Former Alaska governor Sarah Palin, the figure most likely to complain about the press, actually got fairly good coverage throughout her flirtation with a 2012 presidential bid — 32 percent positive to 20 percent negative. Coverage of Palin on blogs, however, was far more negative.

Texas Rep. Ron Paul got the least coverage in the mainstream press and the most coverage on blogs.

A couple more interesting tidbits: Debates shift narratives about candidates more than poll numbers, and the tone of each candidate’s coverage in “the blogosphere” has not changed over time regardless of news events or press.

okay so i just got into a long argument with my boilermaker brother about capitalism. he is ten years younger than me and has a home given to him by my sister. he has one daughter that oqns every high tech piece of equipment money can buy and they have nothing set aside for her college education. I have begged since birth to set up college funds and i get no where, I was even called nazi for emphasizing 50 per week for a parent with a svot nose.

According to newly released internal White House emails, however bad things are now, they’re about to get worse. The messages, which originated within the White House Office of Management and Budget in 2010, admits the train wreck of the Solyndra loan and indicates that “bad days are coming.”

“What’s terrifying,” the note reads, “is that looking at some of the ones that came next, this one [Solyndra] started to look better.”

It’s important to note that these emails were released by Democrats themselves so, in all likelihood, this is the version of the story that presents the best possible picture of the Obama administration’s future. Depending on which poll you read, the President’s approval rating is either a point or two above or below 40% and his administration is mired in multiple, deepening, scandals. This leads many conservatives to speculate that Obama will have no other choice but to bow out of a 2012 contest that he knows he can’t win. They’d better hope he doesn’t. For the sake of the nation, Obama needs to run, and he needs to be defeated in an election.

Some on the right will argue that the chance of him winning a second term is too great and the United States would be better off if he just resigned. The problem is, he won’t just disappear. Ex-presidents may no longer enjoy the perks of the office, but they still command considerable attention both at home and abroad. Barack Obama would present the left with the ultimate rock star of retired politicians, and he’d love to wield that kind of power.

If he simply quits, Obama will return to his community organizing roots. He’ll begin shouting about the nation that was too stupid, too trapped in its own past, to acknowledge the greatness of the future he tried to build. He’ll blame Washington and evil corporations for standing in the way of his vision. He’ll imply that we’re a racist land which couldn’t deal with a black president and, most importantly, he’ll declare that he was never beaten.

A new narrative will emerge – one that claims he chose to leave office because America’s “broken system” is incapable of offering the downtrodden a country they deserve. In short, Obama will have martyred his Presidency, sacrificing his dream of a “rebuilt” America, because it’s simply unobtainable within the current constitutional system.

It’s a message that would prove irresistible to multiple segments of the population. Obviously, much of the left already believes it and the gang of misfits currently “occupying” Wall Street would lap it up. Add to their number the 45% of U.S. citizens currently receiving some form of government assistance, 12 million illegal immigrants, a global network of Soros-funded activist groups, and Obama would instantly find himself fronting a substantial, destructive, political force.

Contrast that with an Obama that runs for, and loses, the 2012 election. Sure, many of the same arguments would be made. Left wing pundits would still do their best to paint the President as a tragic figure whose ideas were too grand for an ungrateful nation. Nothing is going to stop the faithful from making that claim. However, the argument will be severely diminished in the context of a failed re-election bid. The President’s vision will have been presented to the people, and it will have been rejected in favor of a new course. The moral superiority that would come from walking away, false though it may be, will have been lost and America’s malcontents will have been denied their martyr.

At this point, it’s impossible to deny that the country will be in a better position without Obama at the helm. His policies have been nothing but destructive, both in terms of finance and personal freedom. It’s become clear that there will be no turnaround, economic or otherwise, as long as he’s in power.

Obama leaving office is imperative, but how he departs will set the stage for future battles. Those hoping for retirment would do well to keep that in mind.

Politico reported that on Friday, CNBC’s John Harwood sat down with White House Chief of Staff Bill Daley and asked about President Obama’s remark the previous day to Ed Henry of Fox News. Henry, you’ll recall, asked the president a question which included a critical comment of Obama by Mitt Romney, to which Obama said, “I didn’t know you were the spokesperson for Mitt Romney.”

“I want to ask you about the thinking within the White House,” Harwood said to Daley. “Yesterday at a press conference one of my colleagues asked the president to respond to something Mitt Romney said. The president said, ‘I didn’t realize you were a spokesman for Mitt Romney.’ Is the White House — you feeling — the president feeling under siege from events right now?”

Daley didn’t deal with the question, so Harwood pressed him a bit. “Why would the president respond that way to a reporter, though?” Harwood asked.

“I don’t think it was a colleague from your network,” Daley said, “but a colleague from another network.” And then Daley added this: “And — sometimes as you — I know it may surprise people, some people that there are certain people in the media who do seem at times to carry the water for certain — piece of the political spectrum.”

Last week, I wrote how it’s a sad thing to watch Barack Obama morph into Richard Nixon​. Daley’s comments are as good an opportunity as any to expand on that point.

In his wonderful book Before The Fall: An Inside View of the Pre-Watergate White House, William Safire – who worked for and in many respects admired Richard Nixon — wrote this (in a chapter titled, “The Press Is The Enemy”):

I was convinced that the President – though he got hopping mad at the unfairness inflicted on him so often by a largely hostile press corps – was at bottom realistic about the adversary relationship, and appreciated the attempts by loyal aides to get out and proselytize.

I was wrong about that. Some reflection on what happened during my White House years, buttressed by subsequent revelations, has persuaded me that Nixon’s attitude toward the press, though sometimes understandable, was neither justifiable nor defensible – especially when his hatred of the press carried him beyond the grounds of good sense.

When Nixon said, “The press is the enemy,” he was not saying, as some of us had hoped, “Be careful, its interest in gathering information is not our interest of developing policy” or “There is an ideological bias as well as an institutional opposition in the attitude of the press” or even “They’re a pain in the neck, and don’t waste your time with ‘em.” He was saying exactly what he meant: “The press is the enemy” to be hated and beaten, and in that vein of vengeance that ran through his relationship with another power center, in his indulgence of his most combative and abrasive instincts against what he saw to be an unelected and unrepresentative elite, lay Nixon’s greatest personal and political weakness and the cause of his downfall.

Among the differences between Nixon and Obama when it comes to the press is that the former was a maligned figure by many in the media, who didn’t particularly like Nixon and strongly disagreed with his policies (particularly his stance on the Cold War and in the Alger Hiss​ case). Obama, on the other hand, received press treatment that was as favorable as any presidential candidate we have seen. But for Obama, that has not been enough. He seems to believe that even as president he should not be challenged; and for a reporter to challenge him is a sign of disrespect, ignorance, and/or malice.

Obama, it seems, is under the impression he deserves veneration and reverence from all quarters and all institutions. He hasn’t received that, including from professionals like ABC’s Jake Tapper, and Obama seems to delight in critiquing the press, perhaps secretly wishing he was Howard Kurtz instead of the commander-in-chief. But it is Fox News for whom Obama and his team have special contempt. For them, Fox is clearly “the enemy,” to be hated and beaten. For those who doubt this verdict, it’s worth recalling the extraordinary campaign against Fox News carried about by Obama’s then communications director, Anita Dunn, which even Sam Stein of the Huffington Post characterized as a “brutal denunciation.” One can only imagine the howls of protest we would have heard from the fourth estate if, say, Karen Hughes had so explicitly and publicly targeted a news network during the Bush presidency. But in this instance, Dunn’s “War on Fox” was met mostly by silence and a shrug of the shoulders.

What we have seen exposed in the Obama White House is a vein of vengeance antithetical to the image put forward by Obama in 2008 – but fully consistent with what one would expect from a man well-versed in the Chicago Way.

None of this seems to have bothered Fox News in the least; in fact, they have probably benefited from being on Obama’s enemies list, just as some of Nixon’s targets did. But the president’s hatred for elements of the press is a useful insight into his cast of mind. He is a man of growing grievances, of resentments he cannot contain. And so from time to time they spill out into his public statements. One can only imagine what is said in private as Obama – in his own cool, controlled way – rages against the many injustices he believes have befallen him.

Obama has become a bitter man – bitter at the GOP, bitter at some of his own liberal allies, bitter at the press, and even bitter at the public, whom he now says has “gone a bit soft” (a revelation that coincides with the public turning hard against the president and his policies).

For those of us who once thought better of Obama, it’s a disappointing – and increasingly worrisome – thing to watch.

We have tried not to post any of the many stupid/insane interviews of random Occupy Wall Street protesters. Every demonstration/protest has a bunch of nuts in it and the crackpots should not be used to discredit the whole (as was done with such joy against the Tea Party). We can’t resist the Howard Stern interviews however (some language might be objectionable to the demur):

I am a Howard Stern fan,
Do I think the man is a supreme ass?
Beyond a doubt, but his infancy has made me think.
I began my bromance with Stern in 1987 when he sent Jessica McClure a get out of the well card. I’m not always on the same page but I respect so much his no holds back to everything.

uh-oh seems some street people are not so welcome in the tents.
Looks like many of the homeless(who one can argue that by existence have been beating the same drum by just being) are being told to drift off but are welcome the next am when the news might be there.

Actually considering spending a few days on the edge. i’d love to be camping out shooting the breeze. i have slept in Riverside Park– lost my keys and Hyde Park-strung out on club drugs so bad that I couldn’t tie my shoes let alone find my way back to a hostel.

i think it might be interesting to do it here. Problem is i only have access to a Disney Princess tent or a three room luxury abode. No small basic tents and the cheapest I can find is 79 on target.

I went back to the mini protest on the way home from work to stir up the Obot pot again.

Lots of homemade signs waiting, but only two older, weird women there at the time. They really thought they had a new recruit when I started to talk to them, pulled out a plastic chair but I let them know I wasn’t there to support them, just wanted them to think about who was the cause of America’s financial decline. About ten minutes later, they each walked away from me, upset and sat on the curb they were debating what I told them about the half black, unexperienced, liar they voted for that just used them and they all need to take their message to the

I let them know I voted for Hillary, and although I am not a Republican, I will vote for anyone that can get Jim out of office and stop this disaster.

Actually, the first thing I asked them is…” What has Obama done since he was put in office that you agree with?.”……………………crickets…

I did not make them happy, but they did not disagree with me nor stand up for Berry.

Turns out they are both from PINK, didn’t know anything about Obama care in policy, only cared about the war and unemployment.

These two really knew very little about what is going on, hopefully I upset them enough to start to question what they are supporting.

An overwhelming majority of demonstrators supported Barack Obama in 2008. Now 51% disapprove of the president while 44% approve, and only 48% say they will vote to re-elect him in 2012, while at least a quarter won’t vote.
Fewer than one in three (32%) call themselves Democrats, while roughly the same proportion (33%) say they aren’t represented by any political party.

Looking at what WSJ says, if the ‘overwhelming majority’ of OWS voted for Obama and are longtime ‘activists’, then he already HAS their addresses. Any new address-sharing and networking will be among those who plan NOT to vote for him. So this is the first opportunity for the anti-Obama kids to learn they’re not alone and to get organized, without the faithful Bots keeping them in line.

This week U.S.P.S. brought my annual open enrollment advice, which is in part, as follows:

“The UnitedHealthcare Medicare Advantage PPO requires CMS-approval for participants to enroll in OR DISENROLL FROM the plan. As a result, all elections and effective dates of coverage are driven by CMS. Enrollment and disenrollment are not solely within the control of Alcatel-Lucent, and rely heavily on decisions made by CMS. If you elected enrollment in the Alcatel-Lucent UnitedHealthcare Medicare Advantage PPO and then subsequently enroll in another CMS approved Medicare Advantage Plan, it could adversely impact your enrollment/eligibility in the UnitedHealthcare Medicare Advantage PPO with Alcatel-Lucent.

“Medicare Advantage HMO benefits are subject to review and approval by Medicare. Therefore, your monthly contributions listed above and the benefits for these options could change from what is shown on your personalized Enrollment Worksheet. Final pricing and benefits are usually approved by late fall. If you are affected by any changes to coverage (e.g. pricing, service area changes, etc.), you will have the opportunity to make a new medical election.

“A Medicare Advantage approval form is required if you are enrolling in or disenrolling from a Medicare Advantage HMO. Your election will pend until the approval form is returned. A form will be automatically mailed to you with instructions.”

Although I have for years found Alcatel-Lucent’s health coverage offering to be cost-prohibitive for years, they are currently no better even though it appears they have abandoned carrier Aetna for AARP’s love, UnitedHealthcare.

Quinnipiac Poll
October 17, 2011 – New Yorkers Back Wall St. Protesters 3 – 1, Quinnipiac University Poll Finds; Stay As Long As You Want, Even Republicans Say
“It’s a free country. Let them keep on protesting as long as they obey the law, New Yorkers say overwhelmingly,” said Maurice Carroll, director of the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute. “Critics complain that no one can figure out what the protesters are protesting. But seven out of 10 New Yorkers say they understand and most agree with the anti-Wall Street views of the protesters.

Wow! Heard on the radio this morning that Hillary is on a diplomatic mission to Libya. She landed there today and flew in on a heavily armed military plane.

According to Bloomberg she will meet senior officials from the interim National Transitional Council to offer help with securing missing weapons, encourage the development of non-oil industries and provide veterans of the conflict with medical care and education.

Just released campaign donations reports show Wall Street support for President Barack Obama – which so favored Obama in 2008, has declined sharply as the president hopes to be re-elected in 2012.

Goldman Sachs alone, the Wall Street titan that saw over one million dollars in personal employee donations go toward Barack Obama in 2008, has to date only donated $45,000 for the 2012 Obama campaign. By contrast, Mitt Romney has already received over $350,000 in Goldman Sachs donations. Other donation disparities from such firms as Morgan Stanley and Blackstone are showing similar trends.

Despite this current downturn in Wall Street support, the Obama campaign continues working hard to attract Wall Street dollars while simultaneously lending support for the Occupy Wall Street protests – a contradiction the Obama people appear comfortable with at present.

Michelle Obama’s Mirror cracks me up. Check out the 99% site bios and her responses. Hilarious.

Today she has a TOTUS update.

In other breaking news: I know you’ve all been concerned about the kidnapping of TOTUS from the Marriot hotel parking lot. I’m happy to report he’s been recovered, none the worse for the wear, in the parking lot of a nearby Holiday Inn Express. In fact, TOTUS reports that the breakfasts at Holiday Inn Express are much better, and he really enjoyed the hot cinnamon rolls. He said the perpetrators intended to take the whole busload of equipment to Occupy Wall Street because the crowd was growing tired of the “twinkle hands” and human microphones. However, they didn’t seem to appreciate TOTUS’ rogue comments and took the whole busload of them back and dumped them off.

TOTUS Statement at OWS:

I’m one of the lucky ones. I got my degree in teleprompting and landed a job with a young senator. He paid all my student loans. Now I work constantly. I even get to do my boss’s job! I’ve got great benefits butt it could all end tomorrow.

I don’t like Hillary going into the danger zones
——————–
Let’s see which of the lame-assed media whores will recall how they broadcast for 3 days in 2008 how Hillary had lied about facing danger in Bosnia on a visit as First Lady and accompanied by Chelsea (I think). All it took to clarify the apparent contradiction was going to her campaign site – getting direction for her counterclaim, buying her Living History book from Borders now recently closed, and, turning to the proper page in her book; then affirming that she recalled the wrong time, perhaps the wrong day. But it did happen.

Admin – that poor guy brings new meaning to, “…grow some.” I really can’t look at the video, the frozen frame is enough for me. This guy could probably be a donor for all of Congress…and still have enough left for Barry.

From “Opposing Views”, a pretty good article on Fast & Furious from a gun addict. It claims that HRC and Napolitano should also be questioned, may be withholding evidence, and might have lied too. It’s a matter that I’ve been wondering about myself since this scandal broke – how could State not have been advised about it? And how could Homeland Security not have known about it? And why has no one queried them?
***************

The testimony before the Oversight committee by Holder and numerous officials from the Justice Department, Department of Homeland Security, and other federal agencies was a clinic on obfuscation — and it left Issa with little choice.

“It’s time we know the whole truth,” Issa said of this latest development in the widening scandal. “The documents this subpoena demands will provide answers to questions that Justice officials have tried to avoid since this investigation began eight months ago.”

The California Republican is not a lawyer by profession, but Issa, along with his relatively small staff, has managed to go toe-to-toe with the army of lawyers spread across the federal government.

Holder: Point man on guns

Issa’s focus on the Attorney General is well-placed. Holder became the point man on gun control during his stint with the Clinton administration and was an obvious choice to help navigate the Obama administration through the turbulent waters of gun control.

But he was not alone. Another figure, whose name is conspicuously absent in much of the current debate over Fast and Furious, is also a leader on the gun control issue: Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

From the start, Obama, Clinton, Holder and another cabinet member, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano, were itching to make headway on restricting guns, but how could that be done without exacting an unacceptable political price?

For that, the foursome looked south. With violence increasing along the U.S.-Mexico border in 2009, the Obama administration found the perfect scapegoat.

Holder was the first to test the waters. In a February 25, 2009 press conference, Holder spoke for the new administration:

There are just a few gun-related changes that we would like to make, and among them would be to reinstitute the ban on the sale of assault weapons. I think that will have a positive impact in Mexico at a minimum.

Holder was quickly repudiated by Democrats in Congress, more than 60 of whom said in a letter that a renewal of the gun ban was a non-starter, and Holder was forced to back away from his comments.

The 90% Myth

A month later, as she embarked on her first trip to Mexico as Secretary of State, Clinton told CBS news that, “The guns that are used by the drug cartels against the police and the military, 90 percent of them come from America.”

Clinton’s use of the 90% number sent honest reporters looking for verification. Instead, the number was debunked within days. Still, the administration clung tenaciously to the 90% claim.

The following month, in April 2009, speaking at a joint press conference with Mexican President Felipe Calderon, Obama said:

This war is being waged with guns purchased not here, but in the United States. More than 90 percent of the guns recovered in Mexico come from the United States, many from gun shops that line our shared border.

Incriminating March 2009 press briefing

Interestingly, the day before Clinton went to Mexico in March, no mention was made of any gun ban or the alleged 90% number at a press briefing on the problem of violence in Mexico held at the White House by Napolitano, Deputy Attorney General David Ogden and Deputy Secretary of State Jim Steinberg (both the number two men in their respective departments).

Ogden spoke in broad terms, noting that, “Attorney General Holder and I are committed to taking advantage of all Department resources and those of associated agencies to target the Mexican cartels.”

Ogden also detailed the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives’ (ATF) efforts “to fortify its Project Gunnrunner, which is aimed at disrupting arms trafficking between the United States and Mexico.”

From Gunrunner to Fast and Furious

Project Gunrunner was the umbrella under which Operation Fast and Furious, an ATF brainchild in which thousands of firearms were allowed to walk into the hands of Mexico’s most dangerous drug cartels, was developed.

On its face, the intent of Fast and Furious was to allow straw purchasers to illegally buy guns in the U.S. and transfer the weapons to cartel members, with authorities following the guns up the criminal supply chain to bring down the cartels.

But that never happened. Over the protests of U.S. gun dealers and rank-and-file ATF agents, thousands of guns were allowed to be purchased and to simply “walk” across the border. ATF never knew exactly where the guns would end up, and in reality the agency became a supplier of firearms to violent drug cartels.

Subsequently, Fast and Furious firearms were found at the murder scenes of two U.S. government agents as well as over 150 Mexican law enforcement officers. American and Mexican police were killed by guns furnished by the U.S. government and paid for by taxpayers.

While Fast and Furious was not specifically mentioned at the press briefing (it would begin operating later in the year), that meeting at the White house shows that the heads of at least three departments of the federal government were intensely aware of what was happening along the border at the very beginning of the Obama administration.

One by one, however, Obama, Holder, Napolitano and Clinton (plus a host of lower level officials) have denied any knowledge of Fast and Furious prior to 2011.

Rep. Issa is hot on the trail of Holder, thanks to a string of incriminating emails and other evidence. But all four were huddled around the border in early 2009, and all four made trips to Mexico in March-April of that year.

Subpoenas for Clinton, Napolitano?

Dissecting what people in the highest levels of government knew and when they knew it leads only to troubling conclusions. Either they all have lied, under oath or in public comments, about their knowledge of Fast and Furious.

Or there exists an unbelievable level of incompetence at the State Department (for not being aware of thousands of guns being sent to violent gangs in another country), at Homeland Security (which claims no knowledge of guns being allowed to walk across a border which falls under its jurisdiction to control) and at the Justice Department (with high-level officials claiming no knowledge of a multi-million dollar operation occurring right under its nose).

Rep. Issa’s 22-point subpoena of documents related to Holder will pull on strings that could unravel a much wider network of corruption. The available evidence strongly suggests that Holder lied to Congress about his knowledge of Fast and Furious. If that’s the case, while it may not be proof positive that the heads of other departments lied as well, it will at least lead Issa’s investigation to take a much closer look at the roles of Clinton and Napolitano.

And even if Holder and the rest lose their jobs, it shouldn’t end there. Guns were illegally run into Mexico, where they could be “found” by Mexican police and traced back to the U.S. Was this done, as some former ATF agents suggest, to pad statistics in order to justify the 90% number and to serve as a rallying cry for a reinstatement of the semi-auto ban? If so, that is criminal behavior, made infinitely worse by the fact that many innocent people have died as a result.

John Velleco is the Director of Federal Affairs for Gun Owners of America, a grassroots lobbying organization with over 300,000 members nationwide.

Here’s a direct link to Comments on the WSJ article on OWS. 700+ of them, so I didn’t read them all.

I was hoping some of the comments would really take apart the slanted reporting in the article, because I don’t have time.

But some of the figures in the article sound about like more general polls. Quoting from memory here: 51% disapprove Obama, 48% will NOT vote for him in 2012 (tho most did in 2008).

One difference which WSJ tries to conceal: 15% OWS are unemployed, vs 9.x% in the general public. That’s a big difference. (WSJ tries to conceal it by saying the figures are “within single digits” of each other.)

Also they give exact figures for those who “now” disapprove and will not vote for Obama again — but only say that an “overwhelming majority” voted for him in 2008. Why not give that figure too?

Most important, they claim they visited one OWS site and “randomly” chose 200 people to question. How “randomly” was this?

Here’s a direct link to Comments on the WSJ article on OWS. 700+ of them, so I didn’t read them all.

I was hoping some of the comments would really take apart the slanted reporting in the article, because I don’t have time.

But some of the figures in the article sound about like more general polls. Quoting from memory here: 51% disapprove Obama, 48% will NOT vote for him in 2012 (tho most did in 2008).

One difference which WSJ tries to conceal: 15% OWS are unemployed, vs 9.x% in the general public. That’s a big difference. (WSJ tries to conceal it by saying the figures are “within single digits” of each other.)

Also they give exact figures for those who “now” disapprove and will not vote for Obama again — but only say that an “overwhelming majority” voted for him in 2008. Why not give that figure too?

Most important, they claim they visited one OWS site and “randomly” chose 200 people to question. How “randomly” was this?

Hillary Clinton Receiving Donations Of $20.12 From Voters Who Want Her To Challenge President Obama

WASHINGTON — Some of Hillary Clinton’s most ardent supporters just are not willing to let go — and they’ve mounted a push to get her into next year’s White House race by making donations of $20.12 to her old presidential campaign committee.

A review of Clinton’s most recent Federal Election Commission filing finds dozens of $20.12 donors, all of whom have donated before, since contributions that small are not reported until a giver’s total exceeds $200. There are likely others whose totals fall below that threshold.

“The purpose was to to encourage her to reconsider her candidacy for 2012,” said Will Bower, a Clinton die-hard who ponied up his $20.12 on Aug. 13, around the time many of the other like-minded donors cut checks.

“Many of us still believe she was the victor in 2008, if not on paper, in spirit,” said Bower, who ended up voting for Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) in 2008.

Clinton had been the focus of a flurry of speculation about a possible Democratic challenger for President Obama shortly before the burst of contributions.

“It was essentially a call of encouragement,” Bower said. “There’s a strong Facebook community for it,” he added, noting that one he is involved with boasts about 1,500 members.

Most recognize that it is very unlikely that Clinton, the current secretary of state, will run for president again in 2012 — Clinton has said repeatedly she’s done with electoral politics.

But Bower and others like him are not giving up hope. “We feel that she would have been the better president, and would be,” Bower said.

Even if Clinton was planning to mount a bid, her 2008 campaign fund isn’t currently in good enough shape to get her going. It’s down to just $109,039.87, and the campaign still owes $274,010 to the consulting firm Penn Schoen Berland, whose CEO, Mark Penn, served as the Clinton campaign’s chief strategist.

Small-dollar donors are not exactly keeping the campaign fund afloat; they contributed just $4,772.88 of the committee’s $40,750.01 in receipts in the third quarter. The rest came from bank interest and from renting out the committee’s most valuable remaining asset — its list of donors who wanted to see Clinton become president.

Many professional fundraisers have paid the committee for access to those names, as have numerous Democratic candidates. The most recent financial disclosure report revealed that one such candidate is Elizabeth Warren, who is challenging Republican Sen. Scott Brown for his seat in Massachusetts.

Warren’s campaign shelled out $8,275.98 for access to the Clinton list. Clinton ran well in Massachusetts in 2008, winning 55 percent of the Democratic primary vote, and Warren’s campaign could also use the national network of Clinton donors to tap activists looking for a new female icon in politics on the left.

jeswezy, re: Hillary and gunrunner, I saw an article (can’t remember where) that said it appeared from documetnts that Hillary had put a firewall between herself and whatever Obama-apointee officials at State were being briefed. Like, NO communication on it between them and her at all, and that it looked deliberate.

I don’t know if that’s enough to save her, if this thing blows sky high, but it did look to me like they were saying she knew the thing was wonky and wanted nothing to do with it.

I enjoy reading Riverdaughter’s account of the protest and not just getting the Fox version…sounds like she is trying to help organize their mission.

===================

Yes, very good, especially in posts last week.

Along with what she and other grown-ups are doing there (profesional people laid off), now she’s also describing some kids chanting and stuff. Which may be a good thing, if WSJ’s figures are anything like right. These former Bots now opposing Obama, finding a non-Obama source of koolaid. May attract others away from Obama.